4.  The applicants were born in 1931 and 1933 respectively. They were a married couple and lived in Košice.
5.  On 26 September 2002 the applicants lodged an action with the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd) against their daughter’s husband seeking restitution of his share in the ownership of a flat, which the applicants had donated to the defendant and their daughter, his wife. They argued that the defendant had been severely abusing their daughter, both psychologically and physically, thus behaving wrongly towards her and, thereby, also themselves.
6.  On 16 January 2003 the applicants requested that a hearing be scheduled. The District Court did so for 30 October 2003, 13 February, 26 August and 31 October 2004. It appears that the first of these hearings did not take place since it had proven impossible to have the summons served on the defendant. The later hearing was cancelled at the applicants’ request because there was an application pending before the Land Registry for correction of the records concerning title to the property to be restored.
7.  Meanwhile, the applicants had been ordered to submit evidence (14 May 2004), which they did (28 May 2004). They also submitted further evidence (9 July and 21 December 2004).
8.  On 24 March 2005 a hearing was held, following which – on 8 April 2005 – the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, which had been instituted against the defendant in the meantime.
9.  On 31 May 2005 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the decision of 8 April 2005 following an appeal by the applicants.
10.  On 2 October 2006 the applicants filed a complaint to the president of the District Court submitting that since 31 May 2005 the District Court had been completely inactive which, in their view, constituted delays.
11.  The president of the District Court replied by a letter dated 23 October 2006 referring to the applicants’ complaint as a “repeated” complaint and finding it justified. He acknowledged that since 25 July 2005 the judge in charge of the case had not taken any step with a view to resolving it, and advised the applicants that the judge had been reminded in writing to proceed with the case without delay.
12.  The letter of the president of the District Court of 23 October 2006 was served on the applicants’ representative on 27 October 2006. On the latter date, the applicants challenged the length of the proceedings by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended – Ústava Slovenskej republiky) to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). The details are set out in paragraphs 16 to 22 below.
13.  On 1 December 2006 the District Court held a hearing, following which the applicants were ordered to produce further evidence. They did so on 18 December 2006.
14.  Further hearings were held on 21 December 2006 and 12 February 2007 and the District Court allowed the action on the latter date.
15.  The defendant’s appeal of 11 May 2007 was dismissed by the Regional Court on 26 February 2009, following a hearing held on the latter date. It became final and binding on 22 May 2009.
16.  The applicants’ complaint to the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 12 above) was received by the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2006.
17.  In their complaint, the applicants submitted that not a single judgment had been given on their action despite its having been pending for more than four years and one month. They claimed a violation of their rights to a hearing without unjustified delay under Article 48 of the Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the equivalent of some 2,200 euros (EUR) each in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
18.  On 22 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of remedies under section 53(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (Law no. 38/1993 Coll., as amended – Zákon o organizácii Ústavného súdu Slovenskej republiky, o konaní pred ním a o postavení jeho sudcov).
19.  Referring to its decisions in cases nos. IV. ÚS 74/05, IV. ÚS 48/06, and II. ÚS 101/06, the Constitutional Court reiterated that a complaint under section 62(1) of the Courts Act (Law no. 757/2004 Coll., as amended – Zákon o súdoch) to the president of the court concerned was considered to be a remedy to be used prior to the lodging of a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings before that court.
20.  The Constitutional Court further reiterated that the remedy in question could only be considered as having been duly used if the complainant had afforded the court in question adequate opportunity to take measures with a view to remedying and correcting the unlawful situation caused by its inaction or ineffective action.
21.  Observing that the applicants’ constitutional complaint had been received by the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2006, it found that their complaint to the president of the District Court had only been a formal step without any effect that it otherwise could have had, had the president of the District Court been allowed adequate opportunity to take measures against unjustified delays in the impugned proceedings.
22.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 10 January 2007.